Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a news story entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.[5] In The Daily Telegraph article Dr. Daniel Came, a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christiantheism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."[6] In October of 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.[7] In addition, Christian apologistMariano Grinbank called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.[8]

Richard Dawkins' fear of criticizing Islam

On February 24, 2013, the Jewish Chronicle Online wrote:

“

In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction". Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."

How can it be that the world's most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.[9]

American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

This month president of the British Humanist Association, Polly Toynbee, pulled out of an agreed debate at London’s Westminster Central Hall in October, saying she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane Craig’s debating style.”

Lane Craig, who is a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif., and author of 30 books and hundreds of scholarly articles, is no stranger to the art of debate and has taken on some of the great orators, such as famous atheists Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Harris once described Craig as “the one Christian apologist who has put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists”.

Responding to Toynbee’s cancellation, Lane Craig commented: "These folks (atheists) can be very brave when they are alone at the podium and there's no one there to challenge them. But one of the great things about these debates is that, it allows both sides to be heard on a level playing field, and for the students in the audience to make up their own minds about where they think the truth lies."[14]

”

On August 19, 2011, the leading British Anglican weekly newspaper the Church Times wrote:

“

The director of Professor Craig’s tour, Peter May, said: “If Craig is ‘wrong about everything else in the universe’ and his arguments for the existence of God are so easy to refute, it is hard to see why the leading atheist voices in the country are running shy of having a debate with him.

“Rather than hurling ad hom­inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers, it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[15]

”

PZ Myers refusal to debate Vox Day

I have heard from numerous atheists who find his intellectual cowardice to be more than a little troubling given his usual tendency to create conflict rather than to avoid it. And he has handed an out to every single individual he ever hopes to challenge in the future. Why should they debate a nobody like him, a clown who isn't even a bigshot in his own field?

As for the PZ Myers Memorial Debate, we are still in search of an atheist to champion the argument that the logic and evidence for the nonexistence of gods is stronger than the logic and evidence for the existence of gods. It is certainly informative to see how many atheists do not appear to believe they are able to effectively make this case; in light of this, many Christians may find this to be a useful tactical approach when confronted by aggressive atheists in the future. This tends to confirm my previous observations that while atheists like to challenge the beliefs of others, they are very ill-prepared, and in many cases downright unwilling, to defend their own. So, if you want to shut them up, simply go on the attack. They'll run away with alacrity.

When the criticism of my WND columns on Pharyngula was first brought to my attention, I referred to Paul Zachary as Pharyngurl because I genuinely thought he was a woman on the basis of the arguments he was presenting. Years later, it is highly amusing indeed to see that he still runs like a girl.
[16]

”

On August 28, 2011, Vox Day declared concerning Myers:

“

What you clearly do not understand is that, by his own admission, PZ relies heavily upon emotional arguments rather than logical ones when he cannot simply appeal to an established scientific consensus. "I'll also cop to the obvious fact that, knowing that reason will not get through their skills, I'm happy to use emotional arguments as well. Passion is persuasive." His tendency to rely upon emotional rhetoric and passion rather than reason is precisely why he is afraid to debate people who rely primarily upon logic, because his ability to present reason-based arguments is relatively low. His ability to utilize reason is simply not equal to the skill of others who make use of it more effectively. PZ is without question an effective preacher to the godless choir of science fetishists, but he is remarkably unskilled at presenting convincing arguments, let alone conclusive ones, to those who do not already agree with him. Unlike you, he knows he is not an effective evangelist.[17]

”

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[18] In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[19]

In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute declares:

“

Defenders of Darwin's theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.[25]

During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.

Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business
that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of
creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating
him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.[26]

”

Atheist Penn Jillette's ducking debates with Christians

Refusal to debate popular YouTube video creator Shockofgod

The Brights Movement was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in 2003 in order to assist in the advocacy of a naturalistic worldview.[27][28] The Brights movement had a media campaign and was announced in Wired magazine (by Richard Dawkins), Free Inquiry (by Richard Dawkins), and on the New York Times op-ed page (by the philosopher and atheist Daniel Dennett).

On September 3, 2012, Shockofgod challenged Jillette to debate the question "Does God exist?" a second time.[31]

Shockofgod points out that although Penn Jillette is an "enthusiastic bright", the website of the Brights Movement has plunging web traffic according to Compete.com.[32]. Shockofgod quipped that it appears as if his prediction that atheism will go from "a squeak to half a squeak in American society" due to the Question evolution! campaign is being fullfilled faster than he expected. The video with the prediction is located on YouTube HERE.

Shockofgod fans taunt to Penn Jillette

Penn Jillette has been contacted about the debate challenge via Twitter, YouTube and email.

Shockofgod fan: "He's watching. trust me. Most Atheists are obsessed with the TRUTH,﻿ they just don't like it."[1]

Shockofgod fan: "Come on Penn, you even WANT people to debate because﻿ our opinions on the existence of God are too important to keep private!"[2]

Penn Jillette is not merely a Las Vegas legend, as an illusionist, but also adheres to (and proselytizes for) the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence sect of atheism having stated, “I know there’s no God,” for example.

One would think that an illusionist who has made a name and a career intelligently designing shows that have dazzled audiences for decades would know that life, the universe and everything do not just happen. Yet, rebellion knows no boundaries and every atheist concocts consoling delusions—or, consoling illusions.

You may recall Sye from a previous article, Atheism’s debategate: on the Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber debate and you may be aware that on occasion Penn Jillette has some positive things to say about Christians (such as in Penn Jillette Lays it Down). However, just as often he uses compliments as an open door to challenge Christians, in a good way, yet the goal is always the same: open the door just enough to squeeze in and preach the pseudo-gospel of atheism.

We will just to just wait and see how Penn Jillette responds, for now let us spread the word about this challenge.
[33]

”

New Atheism and hypocritical cowardice

The New Atheists have expressed that the proverbial straw-that-broke-the-Atheist-camel's-back was the group of attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001 AD. That is not to say that some of them were not Atheist activists before then, but 9/11 fanned the flames of their activism.

The attacks on 9/11 where primarily caused by Islamic extremism (with a long list of other causes such as maintenance or gaining of power, wealth, popularity, etc.). The question is: what have the New Atheists done in response to this particular event, this particular threat? Surely, they would focus their efforts primarily, if not exclusively, upon confronting this threat, this cause, head on.

Yet, what have the New Atheists done? What they have and have not done makes one wonder if their appeal to 9/11 is a reason or an excuse. After all, why 9/11? Are they not aware of similar atrocities throughout history? Are they not aware of the recent chronicles of the most secular century in human history also being the bloodiest-with millions upon millions being murdered not only during war, but also by their own regimes? (see here).

Have any of the New Atheists toured Islamic countries giving lectures in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all?
The answers to all of the above are: "No." Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on Christian principles and conveniently launched condemnations which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).[34]